Madras High Court
C.Murugesan vs K.Eswari on 30 November, 2023
A.S.No.681 of 2017
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 30.11.2023
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SOUNTHAR
A.S.No.681 of 2017
1.C.Murugesan
2.C.Shanmugam
3.G.Gopal
4.S.Goutham
5.M.Prakash
6.M.Mathizhagan ...Appellants
Vs.
1.K.Eswari
2.V.Alamelu
3.C.Malar
4.C.Mallika ...Respondent
PRAYER: First Appeal filed under Section 96 of the Civil Procedure Code,
against the judgment and preliminary decree dated 10.03.2017 in O.S.No.170 of
2013 on the file of the I Additional District Court, Salem.
For Appellants : M/s..D.Shivakumaran
For Respondent 1 : Mr.P.Mathivanan
For Respondent 2 : Mr.G.Pugazhenthi
for M/s.A.Nagarathinan
For Respondent 3 &4 : No appearance
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
1/14
A.S.No.681 of 2017
JUDGEMENT
The defendants 1, 2, 5, 7 to 9 are the appellants. The 1 st respondent filed a
suit against appellants and other respondents seeking partition of 1/5th share in
the suit properties. She also sought for declaration that settlement deeds
executed by her mother Sengampillaiammal dated 11.02.2013 were invalid
documents and injunction restraining the appellants and other respondents from
alienating the suit properties. The Trial Court granted a declaration that
settlement deeds executed by Sengampillaiammal dated 11.02.2013 were not
valid documents and granted preliminary decree for partition of 1st respondent's
1/5th share in both the items of the suit properties. The Trial Court also granted
interim injunction restraining the appellants and other respondents from
alienating the suit properties. Aggrieved by the same, the appellants have come
before this Court by way of first appeal.
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred as per their ranking
in O.S.No.170 of 2013.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
3. Plaint averments:-
According to the 1st respondent/plaintiff, the suit properties are joint
family properties of plaintiff and defendants. The suit properties were originally
belonged to father of the parties namely Chinnappan. The 1 st item of the suit
property was purchased by him under registered sale deed dated 04.06.1979 in
his name and his wife Sengampillaiammal. The patta for the 2nd item of the suit
property stands in the name of Chinnappan. Therefore, both the items belonged
to father of the parties namely Chinnappan. The said Chinnappan had three sons
and two daughters. The plaintiff and 3rd defendant are his daughters. The 1st
defendant, 2nd defendant and one late Govindan are his sons. The legal
representatives of deceased Govindan are arrayed as defendants 4 to 6. The 7 th
defendant is the son of 2nd defendant. The defendants 8 and 9 are sons of 1st
defendant. It was averred by the plaintiff that after the death of Chinnappan, the
parties succeeded to his estate and the plainttiff was entitled to 1/5 th share of the
suit properties. It was further averred by the plaintiff that she acquired
knowledge about the gift settlement deeds executed by his mother
Sengampillaiammal in favour of defendants 5, 7 to 9 on 11.02.2013.
Subsequently, she died on 20.03.2013. The said Sengampillaiammal was only a
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
home maker and she had no financial capacity to purchase suit property in her
favour. Therefore, Sengampillaiammal had no right to execute any document
with respect to the suit properties. Accordingly, the plaintiff sought for
declaration that the settlement deeds executed by Sengampillaiammal in favour
of defendants 5, 7 to 9 were invalid documents. On these pleadings, she laid a
suit for declaration, partition and injunction as mentioned above.
4. Averments found in the Written Statement :-
The 2nd defendant filed a written statement and the same was adopted by
defendants 1, 5, 7 to 9. The defendants specifically denied the plaint averment
that suit properties exclusively belonged to Chinnappan. According to the
defendants, said Chinnappan and his wife Sengampillaiammal were doing
firewood and brick business and out of said earning, they purchased the 1 st item
jointly and therefore, Sengampillaiammal and Chinnappan had ½ share each in
the 1st item of the suit property. It was further contended by the defendants that
1st respondent/plaintiff and his sister got married 40 years back and they never
enjoyed the suit property and therefore, they could not be treated as members of
the joint family consisting other male members. It was also averred by the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
defendants that Sengampillaiammal executed three gift settlement deeds in
respect of 2nd item of the suit property in favour of her grandchildren and the
same was also known to the plaintiff. Therefore, the suit was mainly resisted on
the ground that Sengampillaiammal also had ½ share over the suit properties and
the same was gifted to grand children as stated above.
5. The 3rd defendant filed a separate written statement and the same was
adopted by defendants 4 to 6. They claimed that each of them entitled to 1/5th
share in the suit property after the death of Chinnappan and Sengampillaiammal.
6. Evidence before the Trial Court:-
Before the Trial Court, the plaintiff was examined as P.W.1 and yet
another witness was examined on behalf of the plaintiff as P.W.2. Eight
documents were marked on behalf of the plaintiff as Ex.A1 to Ex.A8. On behalf
of the defendants, the 2nd defendant was examined as D.W.1 and 11 documents
were marked on their behalf as Ex.B1 to Ex.B11.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
7. Findings of the Trial Court:-
The Trial Court on the basis of Ex.A1, Sale Deed in the name of
Chinnappan and Sengampillaiammal came to the conclusion that 1st item of the
suit property belonged to Chinnappan and his wife Sengampillaiammal. The
Trial Court, on the basis of patta, Ex.A2 came to the conclusion that suit item 2
also belonged to Chinnappan and Sengampillaiammal. Therefore, the Trial Court
found both the items of the suit property belonged to parents of the parties to the
suit namely Chinnappan and Sengampillaiammal. The Trial Court also held that
Sengampillaiammal had no absolute right over the suit properties and she had no
right to execute settlement deeds in favour of her grandchildren. The settlement
deeds executed by Sengampillaiammalwere held to be invalid and not binding on
the plaintiff. On these findings, the Trial Court granted preliminary decree for
partition of 1/5th share in favour of plaintiff in respect of both the items of the
suit properties. The settlement deeds executed by Sengampillaiammalwere held
to be invalid documents. The Trial Court also granted injunction restraining the
defendants from alienating the suit properties.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
8. The submissions of the learned counsel for the appellants:-
Aggrieved by the said judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court, the
defendants 1, 2, 5, 7 to 9 has come before this Court by way of this first appeal.
The learned counsel for the appellants submitted that after death of Chinnappan,
his wife Sengampillaiammal and sons namely Murugesan, Shanmugam and
grandson Gopal entered into a partition excluding the daughters and the said fact
had not been taken into consideration by the Trial Court. The learned counsel
further submitted that as per Ex.A2, patta for the 2nd item of the suit property,
stands in the name of Chinnappan, Sengampillaiammal and five other persons
namely Chinnannan, Manickam,Thirunamalaiammal, Pazhaniammal and
Jayamani. In these circumstances, the findings rendered by the Trial Court that
the item 2 of the suit property belonged to both Chinnappan and
Sengampillaiammal is contrary to the evidence available on record. He also
submitted when other sharers of item 2 of the properties are not impleaded, the
Trial Court ought not to have granted a decree for partition on the assumption
that the property belonged to Chinnappan and Sengampillaiammal only.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
9. The Submissions of the learned counsel for the respondents:-
The learned counsel for the 1st respondent/plaintiff submitted that merely
because after death of Chinnappan, his wife and sons entered into a partition
deed excluding the daughters, they will not lose their right over the suit
properties. The learned counsel submitted that Ex.B1, partition deed entered
among mother and brothers of plaintiff would not bind her. The learned counsel
further submitted that Ex.A1 and Ex.A2 clearly establish that
Sengampillaiammal had no exclusive right over the suit properties. In such
circumstances, she was not entitled to execute settlement deed in respect of the
entire suit properties and consequently, the findings rendered by the Court below
that the settlement deeds executed by her were invalid is in accordance with law.
10. Points for consideration :-
On the the basis of the submissions made by the counsel on either side
and the pleadings of the parties, the following points arising for consideration in
this First Appeal:-
1) Whether the suit properties are exclusive properties of Chinnappan?
2) Whether the settlement deeds executed by Sengampillaiammal are valid
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
and binding on plaintiff?
3) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to 1/5th share in the suit properties?
11. The item 1 of the suit property was purchased by Chinnappan and
Sengampillaiammal under Ex.A1, Sale Deed dated 04.06.1979. It was contended
by the plaintiff that Sengampillaiammal had no individual source of income and
the entire consideration for the sale was paid by Chinnappan and therefore, the
item 1 of the suit property should be treated as exclusive property of
Chinnappan. Though a plea was raised by the plaintiff as if Chinnappan
provided considerations for purchase of the property jointly in the name of his
wife, there is no acceptable evidence available on record in support of the said
plea except the interested testimony of the plaintiff. When the registered sale
deed Ex.A1 stands in the name of Chinnappan and Sengampillaiammal, it
should be treated as property belongs to both the persons. Further, as per
presumption available under Section 3(2) of Benami Prohibition Act, as it stood
on the date of filing of suit, the property shall be deemed to be purchased for
benefit of wife, even if consideration was paid by husband, unless contrary is
proved. Any property acquired in the name of Female Hindu shall be her
absolute property under Section 14(1) of Hindu Succession Act. In such
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
circumstances, the Trial Court, on appreciation of recitals in Ex.A1, rightly came
to the conclusion that item 1 belonged to Chinnappan and Sengampillaiammal.
The mother of the parties namely Sengampillaiammal has not dealt with item 1
of the suit property in the settlement deeds executed by her. Therefore, as far as
item 1 is concerned, both Chinnappan and Sengampillaiammal died intestate. In
such circumstances, all the children of Chinnappan and Sengampillaiammal are
entitled to 1/5th share each in item 1 of the suit property. Therefore, the decree
passed by the Trial Court granting 1/5th share in item 1 of the suit property is
confirmed.
12. As far as item 2 is concerned, Ex.A2, patta in respect of item 2 stands
in the name of seven persons namely Chinnappan, Sengampillaiammal,
Chinnannan, Manickam, Thirunamalaiammal, Pazhaniammal and Jayamani.
Therefore, a perusal of Ex.A2, patta would suggest that item 2 of the suit
property stands in the name of seven persons including the parents of the parties
namely Chinnappan and Sengampillaiammal. However, the Trial Court without
considering the names of other parties had erroneously come to the conclusion
under Ex.A2, patta for 2nd item of the suit property stands in the name of
Chinnappan and Sengampillaiammal only. As mentioned earlier the Ex.A2
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
stands in the name of seven persons. In such circumstances, it should be
presumed that all the seven persons are co-owners of item 2 of the suit property
in the absence of any evidence to contrary. Therefore, the present suit filed by the
plaintiff without impleading the other patta holders of item 2 is not maintainable.
It is always open to the plaintiff/1st respondent to file a fresh suit for partition in
respect of item2 of the suit property by impleading the other patta holders of
item 2 as mentioned in Ex.A2. Therefore, the decree for partition of 1/5th share
granted by the Trial Court in respect of item 2 of the suit property is liable to be
set aside as the other sharers of the item 2 were not impleaded as parties in the
suit. Accordingly, the decree for partition in respect of item 2 of the suit property
is set aside.
13. The Trial Court came to the conclusion that the settlement deeds
executed by Sengampillaiammal were invalid as she did not have exclusive title
over the properties dealt with under settlement deeds. As discussed earlier, as per
Ex.A2, patta in respect of the item 2 of the suit property, Sengampillaiammal is
shown as one of the patta holders along with six other persons. In such
circumstances, she is having a share in item 2 of the suit property. The settlement
deeds executed by her is valid to the extent of her interest in item 2. However,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
the Trial Court wrongly came to the conclusion that since she was not an
exclusive owner of the item 2, she was not entitled to execute settlement deed
and as a consequence the settlement deeds were invalid documents. The
settlement deeds executed by Sengampillaiammal are valid to the extent of her
interest in item 2 of the suit properties. To that extent, the declaration granted by
the Trial Court requires modification.
14. In view of the discussions made earlier, the First Appeal is partly
allowed by modifying the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court as
indicated below:-
a) the preliminary decree for partition in respect of item 2 of the suit
property is set aside with liberty to the plaintiff to file a fresh suit in respect of
item 2 by impleading all the patta holders as mentioned in Ex.A2.
b) the declaration granted by the Trial Court is set aside to the extent of
interest of Sengampillaiammal over the suit item 2. Therefore, the settlement
deeds executed by Sengampillaiammal are declared invalid excluding her interest
in the item 2 of the suit properties. In respect of her share, the settlement deeds
are valid.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
c) the preliminary decree for partition granted in respect of 1/5 th share in
item 1 is confirmed.
d) In view of the above facts and circumstances of the case, there will be
no order as to costs.
30.11.2023
Index : Yes/No
Internet : Yes/No
Neutral Citation Case : Yes/No
nr
To
The I Additional District Court, Salem.
S.SOUNTHAR, J.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
nr
30.11.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
